Do we really consider single nation rogue attacks worthy of being included in the infobox as a war? Seems a little odd to me. CaladinK (talk • contribs) 04:39, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- This is a text-based internet game. In the end none this stuff really matters, even if it wasn't an actual war. This is just so anyone who wants to learn about it can just look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LexLuthor18 (talk • contribs) 04:19, May 28, 2014
- Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. However, that doesn't mean we can't adhere to some standards; if we threw every raid by a one man alliance onto the list of wars the list would quickly become unmanageable; given that there is nothing notable about this raid I don't believe it should be on the list, though if it wants its own page, that's fine by me. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and, assuming I can work out how, remove it from the list. CaladinK (talk • contribs) 15:15, May 28, 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing. It was already present and poorly formatted, so I fixed it up. Not sure it is worthy of recognition. However, I can think of one war that probably should be in here somewhere: RUKUNU's three year crusade against GOONs. That was an epic war that may in fact deserve mention. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 19:33, May 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Ehh, what's the harm with logging it? Franz Ferdinand, Conquerer of Micros (talk • contribs)
- I generally agree with Franz -- what is the harm of adding it, we are not running out of Pixels. Inclusion on one man crusades will overwhelm the war list. Perhaps a good middle ground is to keep the entry as is, but just remove it from the war stream. That is, take out the "preceded by" and "followed by" entry. Everybody wins -- the entry is still available, and it doesn't clutter up the stram of real wars. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 18:26, June 1, 2014 (UTC)